Republican gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake said she is “seriously” considering running for Senate in Arizona after seeing the polling results.
When commentator Charlie Kirk asked about a possible Senate run, Lake said she is still focusing on her election-related lawsuit. Last week, the Arizona state Supreme Court took up portions of her suit.
“I don’t know politically what I will do next. I never had any desire to get into politics, and the people of Arizona recruited me to run for governor, and we have led an amazing movement of We The People,” Lake said in response.
“It is something I will seriously consider,” added Lake, a former local news anchor President Donald Trump endorsed. “I’ve looked at a lot of polling, probably five polls showing that I can not only win handily in a primary, but I can go on to win the entire race for Senate.”
The Senate seat currently held by Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.) is up for grabs in 2024. Sinema, a former Democrat who became an independent last year, will also face a challenge from Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) after he declares his candidacy for the Senate next year.
In her interview with Kirk, Lake sharply criticized Gallego and Sinema, accusing both of capitulating to the far left. Lake suggested that polling shows she would perform well against either in a three-way race, although it needs to be clarified if Sinema is running for reelection yet.
Earlier this year, a spokesperson for Lake told news outlets that she met with members of the Senate Republican team in Washington. However, few details about the meeting have been provided. Meanwhile, Lake has insisted that she continue pursuing her election lawsuit, alleging enough errors and irregularities during the Nov. 8 gubernatorial race to cost her the election.
The Arizona Supreme Court last week threw out most of Lake’s case but also ruled that a lower court was wrong to dismiss some of her team’s claims about the signature verification process in Maricopa County. After a two-day trial in late December, a Maricopa County judge rejected Lake’s initial election lawsuit. The Court of Appeals tossed it in February before she appealed to the state’s highest court.
JD’s manually curated links for God-fearing MAGA patriots
“Contrary to the ruling of the trial court and the Court of Appeals opinion, this signature verification challenge is to the application of the policies, not to the policies themselves,” the Arizona Supreme Court wrote. “Therefore, it was erroneous to dismiss this claim under the doctrine of laches because Lake could not have brought this challenge before the election,” it added.
Last week, Lake told Just the News that the court ruling “is a victory” for conservatives concerned about election fraud and other irregularities—namely after the 2020 presidential race. “We’ve been trying for three years to get our foot in the door on one of these election cases, and I’ve always said we have the greatest election case ever, and the door’s been pushed open,” she remarked.
But Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer told The Epoch Times after last week’s court decision that they are expecting to win, citing previous election challenges that were successful in court.
“Since the 2020 general election, Maricopa County has won over 20 lawsuits challenging the fairness, accuracy, legality, and impartiality of its election administration,” Richer said. “This case will be no different and will simply add another mark to Lake’s impressively long losing streak.”
Election data shows that Lake lost to Hobbs, a Democrat, by about 17,000 votes during the midterms. Katie Hobbs was sworn in as governor in early January.
The Supreme Court rejected Lake’s claim of intermingled ballots, saying that “the record does not reflect that 35,563 unaccounted ballots were added to the total count.” The high court indicated it would deliberate on March 21 and decide whether to accept the review. In its March 22 order, it denied review of six out of seven points included in Lake’s appeal.
“It is ordered denying review of issues one through five and seven,” reads the opinion written by Chief Justice Robert Brutinel. “The Court of Appeals aptly resolved these issues, most of which were the subject of evidentiary proceedings in the trial court.” He said that Lake’s challenges are “insufficient.”
Tom Ozimek contributed to this report. Article cross-posted from our premium news partners at The Epoch Times.
Safeguarding Your American Dream: Discover the Power of America First Healthcare
In today’s economy, healthcare costs remain one of the biggest threats to financial stability and family security. Americans work hard to build a better life, yet rising medical expenses can quickly erode savings, force tough trade-offs, and even push families toward debt or bankruptcy. Medical bills continue to rank as the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the United States, with millions facing underinsurance or unexpected out-of-pocket burdens that no one plans for. Many turn to government-run marketplace plans under the Affordable Care Act, hoping for relief, only to discover that what appears affordable on paper often delivers higher long-term costs, limited real protection, and coverage that may not align with personal values or family needs.
America First Healthcare stands out as a private insurance agency dedicated to helping conservatives and families secure better coverage and better rates through customized, values-aligned options. By conducting free insurance reviews, the agency uncovers hidden gaps in existing policies and connects clients with private alternatives that emphasize personal responsibility, small-government principles, and genuine affordability—often delivering up to 20% savings while providing stronger protection for the American Dream.
The allure of marketplace plans is easy to understand: open enrollment periods, premium tax credits for many households, and the promise of “comprehensive” benefits mandated by law. Yet recent data reveals a different reality, especially after the expiration of enhanced premium subsidies at the end of 2025. Enrollment for 2026 dropped by more than one million people compared to the prior year, with many shifting to lower-tier bronze plans to keep monthly premiums manageable.
These plans feature significantly higher deductibles—averaging around $7,500 nationally—and greater cost-sharing requirements. Families who once paid modest amounts after subsidies now face average premium increases of $65 or more per month, even as they accept plans that leave them responsible for thousands in upfront costs before meaningful coverage kicks in.
High deductibles create a dangerous barrier to care. Studies show that people in such plans are less likely to seek timely treatment for chronic conditions, attend preventive screenings, or fill necessary prescriptions. A seemingly minor illness or injury can balloon into major expenses when patients delay care until problems worsen. For a family of four, a single hospitalization, cancer diagnosis, or unexpected surgery can easily exceed the deductible, triggering coinsurance and out-of-pocket maximums that still leave substantial bills. One recent analysis noted that some proposed changes could push family deductibles toward $31,000 in future years, further exposing households to financial risk.
Beyond the numbers, marketplace plans often carry structural limitations. Coverage for certain critical services may include waiting periods or narrower networks that restrict access to preferred doctors and specialists. Preventive care is required to be covered without cost-sharing, but everything else—lab work, imaging, specialist visits, or ongoing treatment—typically waits until the deductible is met. This reactive model contrasts sharply with the proactive, holistic approach many families prefer, especially those focused on wellness, early intervention, and maintaining health to enjoy life rather than merely reacting to illness.
Values alignment represents another growing concern. Government-influenced plans operate within a framework shaped by federal mandates and political priorities that may not reflect conservative principles of limited government, personal freedom, and ethical stewardship. Families who want to direct their healthcare dollars toward providers and benefits that honor traditional values sometimes find marketplace options feel misaligned, forcing a compromise between affordability and conviction.
Private alternatives, by contrast, offer year-round flexibility without the restrictions of open enrollment windows. Independent agents can shop across a wider range of carriers to design plans tailored to specific family needs—whether that means lower deductibles for frequent medical users, broader provider networks, or add-ons that support wellness and preventive services from day one. Clients frequently report more stable premiums that do not automatically escalate each year, along with genuine cost savings once the full picture of deductibles, copays, and coverage depth is considered.
Take the experience of real families who made the switch. Amanda C. shared that her new plan felt “way better” than what she had through the marketplace. Johnny Y. noted his previous coverage kept increasing annually until he found a more stable private option. Sofia S. expressed delight with her plan and began recommending it to others. These stories echo a common theme: when families move beyond one-size-fits-all government marketplaces, they often discover customized protection that better safeguards both health and finances.
Founder Jordan Sarmiento’s own journey underscores the stakes. In 2021, a six-day hospitalization generated a $95,000 bill. Under a well-structured private “Conservative Care Coverage” plan, his out-of-pocket responsibility would have been just $500. That stark difference illustrates how thoughtful planning and private options can prevent a medical event from becoming a financial catastrophe.
Practical steps exist for anyone questioning their current coverage. Start with a no-obligation review of your existing policy to identify gaps—high deductibles, limited critical-care benefits, or escalating premiums. Compare total projected costs (premiums plus potential out-of-pocket expenses) rather than monthly premiums alone. Consider family health history, anticipated needs, and lifestyle priorities. Private agencies can present side-by-side options that include stronger wellness incentives, broader access, and plans built on shared values of self-reliance and freedom.
In an era when healthcare inflation continues to outpace general cost-of-living increases, relying solely on marketplace solutions carries growing risk. Families who proactively explore private alternatives frequently achieve meaningful savings while gaining peace of mind that their coverage truly works when needed most.
America First Healthcare makes this exploration straightforward through its free review process. Families and individuals receive personalized guidance to close coverage holes, reduce unnecessary expenses, and secure plans that align with conservative principles—protecting wallets, health, and the American Dream without government overreach. Many who complete a review discover they can enjoy better benefits for less, often saving up to 20% while gaining the customization and stability that marketplace plans struggle to deliver.
Ultimately, protecting your family’s future requires looking beyond the marketing of “affordable” government options. By understanding the long-term costs hidden in high deductibles, shifting coverage tiers, and values mismatches, Americans can make empowered choices. Private, values-driven insurance offers a smarter path—one that rewards diligence, supports wellness, and delivers real security. For those ready to move beyond the limitations of traditional marketplace plans, a simple review can reveal options designed to serve families, not bureaucracies. The American Dream thrives when individuals and families retain control over their healthcare decisions, and thoughtful private coverage plays a vital role in making that possible.